• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ed Jesus Guns Babies

Dr. Keith said:
The army makes the militia of the 2A redundant. Unnecessary. Frivolous.
Click to expand...
My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?

Dr. Keith said:
...she talks about protecting “ourselves” while the 2A talks about protecting “the State”.
Click to expand...
The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?
Click to expand...

Reservists are part of a well-regulated militia not a 'standing army' unless activated.

The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.[/QUOTE]

That sounds almost impressive but really isn't.
 
d4m10n said:
My brother-in-law was sent to Iraq back when the 45th infantry was deployed there. Does it make sense to say that reservists like him were part of a standing army rather than a well-regulated citizen militia?
Click to expand...

Reservist = militia. No problem.

The "free state" isn't made of infrastructure and documents, it is made of citizens.
Click to expand...

Ukrainian are fighting for their state. Retired cops shooting people in theaters are protecting themselves.
 
d4m10n said:
I don't think it's particularly difficult to find examples of the citizen militia protecting state functions much closer to home.

https://twitter.com/nbcwashington/status/1497785456578240513
Click to expand...

The National Guard is a 'well organized militia' under the command of the State.

I can't think of a single private 'citizen' group that calls itself a 'militia' that isn't a right-wing bunch of white supremacist nationalists and/or antigovernment extremists like the Oath Keepers and the 3 Percenters.
 
Stacyhs said:
Comedian Blaire Erksine parodies Kandiss Taylor's campaign ad. Taylor is so stupid she thought Erskine was a real supporter and included Erskine's parody in her media campaign. FF to 2:55 for the parody.

Click to expand...

They spend a lot of time on the question of is she trolling us or is she really this dumb?

I don't know, but I think it's the latter. I don't think it's performance art like Vermin Supreme or Lord Buckethead, where the candidacy is only for the lulz.
 
Lurch said:
If we could resurrect the Founders, one must wonder: What would they make of today's gun-strokers shrieking about the 2A, the proliferation of guns, the 30,000+ deaths by gunfire annually (a million in a generation), and the phenomenon of mass shootings. I imagine they would recoil at the insanity.

I posit that the American mind has been rendered mad through a convenient misinterpretation of one poorly worded sentence.
Click to expand...

I think they might say, “It’s a good thing we included a straightforward provision to repeal or modify any Amendment, or add new Amendments, in order to keep up with changing societal norms.” The problem right now is that “the people”, through their representatives, don’t support repealing or modifying the Second Amendment in sufficient numbers to make it happen. A single word change from “the right of the people…” to “the right of the militia…” would do it. I just don’t see it happening any time soon.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I would seriously question the scholarship of anyone who says it is about personal safety or personal protection from criminals. There is no historical basis for that view. It is entirely modern.

If you read the text without an nra propaganda it is talking about the people having a responsibility to maintain the security of the state. Once we decided to have a standing army we really should have dropped this, too.
Click to expand...

Yea. It would have been nice if they included a statement that a change to the need of the first clause would modify the actual rule in the second clause.
 
The Don said:
Maybe they thought it was so obvious that they didn't need to. :confused:
Click to expand...

Why would that be obvious? The reason for the rule does not modify the rule.

"high scoring, being necessary for the game, the 3 point line is 23 foot, 9 inches."

No matter how detrimental the line is to high scoring....it remains 23 foot 9 inches
 
What would the Founders say? Probably: "We really had too much faith in "the people" having some common sense."
 
d4m10n said:
Indeed.

The authors of the amendment would've been aware of verba cum effectu sunt accipienda as a canon of constitutional construction.
Click to expand...

There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution.It isn't given intent of the author's doesn't matter.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is no given reason to apply that to the constitution.
Click to expand...
We're simply going to have to disagree on whether the traditional canons of constitutional construction should be applied when interpreting the constitution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom